| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Forth: I am disappointed that the Minister has just said that no compensation will be allowed for land because it has alternative uses. Does he accept that it is conceivable that some land might not have any alternative use, as in the case referred to of the concreted-over land, or that, even where land had an alternative use, it might be far less valuable? Is he really saying--even before consultation--that the scheme that he envisages will not include any element of compensation for the value of land?
Mr. Morley: If fur farmers feel that no use whatever can be made of their land, I am sure that they will make that point in the consultation. However, generally speaking I do not accept that. The hon. Member for Hexham referred to the concrete bases, but in the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) the strawberries are grown on tables under low sheds, laid out in exactly the same way as fur farms. I have been to such strawberry farms and they are commercially successful. I am not saying that all fur farmers could convert to such a business, but it is an option which could be considered.
Mr. Hogg: The Minister will have to reconsider the matter because fur farming is an intensive activity and
relatively small areas of land can be used profitably. If fur farming is prohibited, the owner of that land may not be able to find an alternative intensive use. The land might be sold only as ordinary arable land, which would yield much less profit, so the capital value would be much lower. The Minister's response is unsatisfactory.
Mr. Morley: The strawberry farm is an example of a relatively small area of land being used intensively and profitably. However, each fur farmer will have different circumstances and different issues to raise, and that is why there can be no catch-all measure at this stage. Therefore, it is right and proper that the Bill should be an enabling measure so that such matters can be taken into account during the consultation.
I can also confirm to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that the Lands Tribunal will be a process of appeal, and there will be the option of arbitration before the Lands Tribunal, which again is a new measure. We accept that the process will give rise to certain costs, such as the demolition of buildings, which fur farmers may legitimately argue should be covered by the compensation scheme, and we shall give sympathetic consideration to that.
The consultation process has already started and we are trying to make progress. As soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, independent assessors will talk to fur farmers. We expect to be able to consult the industry in the spring on the detail of the compensation scheme following the examination of their books. That will take between eight and nine months and preparation will be able to proceed even during the statutory two-month period after Royal Assent. I understand that the fur farmers want to make progress and we shall do all that we can to ensure that.
I was surprised by the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham in relation to head deboners that matters might have been different had human rights legislation existed at that time which required him to give compensation. He could have given that compensation had he chosen to do so, but he chose not to. Following discussion on the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston, I made it clear that the Government would include a provision for compensation for income lost. I was under no obligation to do so at the time, but I endeavoured to put in place a fair compensation scheme in consultation with my hon. Friend and the National Farmers Union. As it happens, it was felt in the other place that that provision should be firmer and that there should be a requirement to compensate for income. That is what the amendments tabled there seek to achieve. We do not oppose them and recommend their acceptance.
Amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 2 would not have the effect that I suspect was intended by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. As he spelled out, they would remove the Minister's discretion to be selective in determining the businesses that are eligible for compensation through their closure under the Bill. Furthermore, they would require the Minister to compensate all businesses that carry out the banned activities. We have already said that we intend to provide a compensation scheme that is fair and reasonable to the businesses that close because of the Bill, following either Royal Assent or the effecting of a commencement order not before 1 January.
Amendment (b) would require the Government to provide compensation to all businesses carrying out the banned activities. However, the Government have announced that only fur farming businesses that existed on 2 March 1999 will be eligible to claim compensation. On 30 November 1999, fur farmers were reminded in writing of that cut-off, which was announced when my hon. Friend the Member for Garston presented her private Member's Bill. It was stated that any fur farm established after the cut-off date or which closed down before Royal Assent would not be eligible for compensation. The Government must, therefore, have discretion to limit, in the way that I have described, the businesses eligible for compensation. Amendment (b) would remove that discretion and, if accepted, could mean that fur farms that were abandoned years ago and are standing empty could be opened up and so be eligible for compensation.
Mr. Hogg: I am not sure that the Parliamentary Secretary is right. If he reads the amendment, he will see that only those who were rendered illegal and caught by the prohibition would attract compensation. However, that is not my main point. Why does the Bill contain the explicit statement that compensation need not be paid in respect of all income losses and non-income losses, or, indeed, in respect of all businesses? The Parliamentary Secretary has released himself from any obligation.
Mr. Morley: It is important to allow some discretion in the application of the provision, especially with regard to businesses that are in operation after the cut-off date. That is the primary reason for the wording of the provision; it is also why I cannot agree to proposed amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 2. I am sure that hon. Members would not want those amendments to take effect, as they would not safeguard public funds. We do not intend people who are involved in fur farming after the cut-off date to receive compensation.
Mr. Gummer: Will the Parliamentary Secretary repeat his remarks? I suspect that hon. Members have not followed them. Is he saying that the only reason why he does not tie himself to providing compensation in all circumstances is that he might have to provide it for people whose businesses opened after the due date? If that is the case, why is not his intention made clear in the Bill? Will he now express it clearly so that fur farmers know that they have entitlement in all circumstances and in relation to all businesses and all other activities related to the Bill, the only possible obstruction being the wrong dates?
Mr. Morley: The right hon. Gentleman's comments show why the wording is as it is. He used the phrase "all other businesses", but, as a former Minister, he will understand the need for Bills to be properly worded. A fur farmer could own a business that is not directly connected with fur farming, and, unless the provision is worded properly, a claim could be made for that business. The wording is intended to ensure that compensation is geared to fur farming and to business that is directly involved with it. It should not involve unrelated businesses or those that started after the cut-off date.
It has been disappointing to see in some quarters a right-wing opinion suggesting that we cannot take an ethical view on the treatment of animals. Ethics seem to
be a bit different with regard to matters such as the age of consent. I make no apology for taking an ethical view on behalf of the Government on the way in which we treat animals. Significant welfare concerns have been expressed about the rearing of animals in fur farming systems. For example, mink are semi-aquatic animals and are used to wandering over large ranges and having access to water, so they should not be kept in barren wire cages. We know of examples in which mink have gnawed off their tails because of the frustration of being kept in such conditions.
Mr. Hogg: What about chickens?
Mr. Morley: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, such issues arise also with regard to other intensive rearing systems, which is why they are all being examined. However, the issue of fur farming goes beyond welfare. I doubt whether some of the anxieties that have been expressed about welfare could be addressed in a commercial fur farming system.
We are introducing the Bill because fur farming is a moral issue; opposition to such farming is based on morality. The fur farming industry does not provide for basic needs and does not justify the killing of an animal. In a modern society, fur farming has no justification in terms of need. There are alternatives to this form of farming, which is not justifiable. For those reasons, I hope that hon. Members will not support the amendments tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and that they will give the Bill the support that it deserves.
Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 3, line 20, leave out from ("scheme") to ("of") in line 22 and insert
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |